Were I a competitive athlete, I would like to say that I would not take doping products. But nicer people than me have failed that morality test.

But if I could go on a (free) regimen under a doctor's supervision to increase endurance and decrease the effects of aging, hell why not? Reminds me of the Outside magazine article where the author took HGH, EPO, a steroid, and test. I would take HGH and EPO, again if free, prescribed by a physician, and outside of competition. Why not check it out to see how the effects worked? No way would I touch anabolics. I don't like the idea of mood swings, decreased sex drive, and let's face it - I'm vain and I like the size of my junk just how it is.

That article is interesting in how the doctor outlined that different people respond differently to the drugs, and how he referred to "one of my bike racer" clients, like he had several.

I wouldn't first off all some just has too bad side effects to even consider, 'roid's and such. I thought as a thought experiment the other day how easy 'po and blood doping would make regular activities, such as walking to the fridge, however 'po only works if you are supply limited, and unless you are in shape then you are consumption limited and wouldn't benefit. Aderall while it could boost ones logic thinking could help you in school however it would be like cheating, however you could just steal the test. Which would you pick riding the tour on 'po and maybe win, or magically appear first in Paris despite not riding one meter? Also cheating in any of these two ways is a moral step I am NOT willing to take. HGH seems like the best choice to try, I would not be willing to do so either, plus like other people said I also do not like needles.